Fighting a Cold War Against Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden has fired another rhetorical shot across
America’s bow. His latest tape, released last week through
Al-Jazeera, blew both hot and cold. He threatened the United
States and its allies yet hinted at conciliation. Which part
of his message should we believe? A key lesson from
America’s last great global struggle provides guidance.

During the early years of the Cold War, Dean Acheson, one
of the architects of American foreign policy, concluded that
the United States should focus on the Soviet Union’s
capabilities, not its intentions. He argued that America
should always engage in “negotiation from strength.” So by
the time he became President Truman’s secretary of state in
1949, Acheson had adopted a hard-headed attitude recognizing
international relations as power politics. Acheson’s sage
advice applies today as American leaders assess Osama bin
Laden’s latest communication.

Bin Laden’s audio-taped message offered both stick and
carrot. The stick is the threat of future catastrophic
attacks. The carrot is a proposed “truce.” The issue at hand
is America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Acheson
were alive today, he would ask which threatened attacks
al-Qaida is capable of carrying out. Given the history of
bin Laden and his organization, we can assume that his
capabilities and his intentions are one and the same. If
he’s capable of mounting an attack, he will do so.

By asserting that he knows the Bush administration will
not change course, bin Laden has played his hand. And his
prediction has proved right — the administration is not
going to pull out as the result of a threat nor be tempted
by an offer of a truce. Bin Laden expected this response,
which leaves the United States in the position of dealing
with what we know — bin Laden has made a threat to attack
the west. Each time he has made such a threat, he has
followed through.

In 1996 bin Laden declared “Holy War” against the United
States. In 1998 he expanded and clarified his war edict to
include the killing of “Americans and their allies,
civilians and military . . . in any country in which it is
possible to do it.” What followed were the seemingly
forgotten atrocities in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es-Salaam,
Tanzania, on August 7, 1998, in which 225 lost their lives
and thousands were injured, the overwhelming majority of
them Africans.

Then there were the never-to-be forgotten attacks of
9-11. Later, radical Islamists tied to al-Qaida or
al-Qaida-like organizations claimed responsibility for the
catastrophic train bombings in Madrid in March 2004 and the
London bombings in July 2005 (before which bin Laden had
offered a similar truce). As a general rule, bin Laden, his
followers and his imitators followed through on threats.

It’s worth remembering that the Cold War was won over the
course of decades, not years. Like Stalin before him, bin
Laden is a menace, but radical Islam will continue to pose a
threat even when bin Laden goes, as the Soviet Union did
after Stalin died. Acheson had developed a plan based on
long-range planning, staying the course, and not being
fooled by brief diversions from the enemy’s established
patterns.

We know what al-Qaida and like-minded groups are capable
of. To plan for anything less their following through with
their threats would be foolhardy. Dean Acheson recognized
this 50 years ago and pushed American policy makers to
develop a plan to contain and eventually defeat the Soviets.
Osama bin Laden’s record tells us that it is best to heed
his warnings and to do the same.

Derek Catsam is a history professor at the University of
Texas of the Permian Basin and has been a fellow with the
anti-terrorism think tank, the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies.

HNS

The History News Service (HNS) is an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to bring the perspective of history into current debates over public affairs.

The mission of HNS is to connect scholarly history and popular journalism The HNS provides free distribution of history-related op-ed essays to newspapers and news Web sites, including the History News Network.